Owners of historic Elm Street buildings needed for César Chávez expansion say they’ll see the city in court

The handful of buildings in question, which the city needs to raze to make way for a wider César Chávez

A couple of weeks back we noted that the city’s on schedule to two-way and expand César Chávez Boulevard and Pearl Expressway downtown, which will result in the demise of some of the oldest buildings downtown — the three at the intersection of Chávez and Elm, including at least one, 2226 Elm, that dates back to the late 1800s. Problem is, the city and the property owners remain far apart on the value of the structures, which is why the Dallas City Council will again vote one week from Wednesday to acquire the buildings — “including the exercise of the right of eminent domain,” says the jam-packed June 27 agenda, “if such becomes necessary.”

Pete Fonberg, owner of 2226 Elm, has already rejected the city’s offer of $403,500; Harvard Companies’ Randall Turner has already scoffed at the $757,000 being offered for 2222 Elm. That was in January 2011, the first time the council voted to buy the buildings. The city’s offer remains the same, per the June 27 agenda. So too do Fonberg and Turner’s responses. “Totally inappropriate,” says Fonberg, who lost his corner tenant, TePheJez jazz club, as soon as it became clear the city intended to buy and bulldoze the buildings.

“We’ve had a variety of tenants there over the years, but the nightclub moved because they were aware there was going to be a taking and broke their lease,” Fonberg says. “And we don’t want to get involved in trying to put somebody else in there and wind up with them knowing we have this to determine, so we’re siting fallow in the water. I guess we’re going to wind up in court trying to determine what’s appropriate.”

“The city has taken three and a half years” to get to this point, Turner adds, “and they told our tenants to move out two years ago. We told the city’s counsel to stop it. We didn’t want anyone telling our tenants to move out when we knew the city would take this long.”

“If a municipality needs to use eminent domain to acquire a property, then it requires a record vote by the city council,” she explains. “Because that law changed, we thought it necessary for them to authorize it [again], including by use of eminent domain.”

Here’s how it’ll likely go down:

The back of the block also looks like it (probably) did 100 years ago ... except without the "Tini Bar" part, among a few other small changes.

If Fonberg and Turner reject the city’s offer — and both say they will, again — the City Attorney’s Office will file something that resembles a lawsuit in Dallas County court. After that a judge will appoint a panel consisting of three county property owners — most of whom are usually friends of the judge’s, or at least acquaintances, not that there’s anything wrong with that. The city and property owners will make their respective cases to the commissioners in an informal setting, after which the panel will come up with a number, which the city immediately deposits in an account. If the owner draws dough out of that account, then that’s that. But …

If one or both sides disagree with that figure, then it’s off to court they go, where the jury will hear the whole thing all over again — except for the dollar amount agreed upon by the judge’s commissioned panel, which remains secret throughout the trial.

Long story short: The city usually gets what it wants; property owners, a little less. But in the end the buildings will probably disappear at some point. And while there’s been talk of moving them elsewhere, Fonberg for one is highly skeptical.

“Can it be done? I have no idea,” he says. “They would have to show me how they’d do it. Would it make sense to us? For what reason? Where is it they want to take it? Farmers Market? It’s a solid brick building. How would they do it? And it has a common wall with 2224 [Elm], where he’s lost his tenant too. It surprise me sometimes these things take place. And putting us as a property owner in a position that we can’t do anything in the building is like getting involved with the federal government. They’re not in a hurry, but put you in a position where you can’t lease it, just pay the taxes and insurance.”

Turner, as he told us a couple of weeks back, is still all for the expansion of Chávez, which critics insist will further separate Deep Ellum from downtown. And he’s still sold on downtown. He just doesn’t want the city taking this building, among the last of the two-story gems left in the Central Business District.

“We want to buy another building downtown,” he says. “We’ve very bullish on downtown, and hopefully we can buy and develop another one like we did with the Fidelity Union Life Insurance Building, which is now the Mosaic, and the Ramada Plaza Hotel, which we’re still hoping to restore to its former glory. But on Elm we had to drop rent to keep our tenants, and it’s hard to keep people when there’s such uncertainty. This has been a long ordeal, and I’d like to get this resolved one way or another.”

Top Picks

ArchivesAbout This Blog

About this Blog

Our City Hall reporters and other Dallas Morning News writers and editors provide in-depth features, breaking news and offbeat tidbits through lively coverage of Dallas government.
Readers are encouraged to join the conversation.